What Language Adds, and at What Cost: Four Controlled Probes of Pathology Vision-Language Models

Pathology vision-language models (VLMs) have shown strong visual perception ability, but their robustness in the language domain remains poorly characterized. Existing pathology VLM benchmarks largely rely on canonical closed-set prompts or perturb only generic templates, treating language as a fixed evaluation component rather than a variable axis of model behavior. In clinical practice, however, diagnostic language varies across reports, institutions, and candidate diagnoses. We introduce PathLang, a language-centered and clinically grounded zero-shot benchmark. PathLang holds the underlying slides, ground-truth labels, and image-text evaluation direction fixed while systematically varying only the diagnostic language, so that performance differences reflect how a diagnosis is phrased rather than what is imaged. The language variation follows how pathologists actually rephrase diagnoses (terminology, specificity, and reporting style), and all prompts and candidate pools are validated by six board-certified pathologists. PathLang covers four task families: (1) zero-shot classification with image-text alignment analysis, (2) cross-modal retrieval, (3) paraphrase robustness, including semantic-equivalence paraphrases, length and reporting-style variation, and prompt ensembling, and (4) open-vocabulary diagnosis retrieval over four candidate pools with distinct forms of semantic competition. Across nine VLMs and five public datasets spanning four organs, we find that performance is highly sensitive to clinically equivalent paraphrases, varies substantially across forms of semantic competition, and that image-text alignment quality does not necessarily translate into inter-class separability. We release the prompt corpus, candidate pools, pre-computed text embeddings, and evaluation code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PathLang.

Pathology vision-language models (VLMs) are conventionally evaluated by accuracy, but accuracy alone does not measure evidence use: it may conflate dataset contamination, prior knowledge, and image evidence. In a motivating study of lymph-node metastasis prediction, we found that most public pathology VLMs showed minimal differences when changing from feeding the models with whole-slide images, an annotated lesion, or no image at all. To better understand the specific features leveraged by these models, this paper presents two contributions aimed at disentangling these factors. First, we present CleanSlide, a TCGA-based VQA benchmark designed to eliminate image- and question-side contamination. It contains 149K audited multiple-choice questions over 9,985 slides, with patient- and tissue-source-disjoint splits. Every question is audited for option shortcuts, stem leakage, cross-split duplication, and blind solvability. Second, we propose Pair-DPO, a preference loss over counterfactual slide pairs from the same question and source. By controlling for shared confounding factors, Pair-DPO cancels out the question-attributable signal and leaves image evidence as the source of preference. Specifically, each pair consists of two real slides with opposite, verified findings, introducing neither editing artifacts nor unverified labels for diffuse or graded features such as invasion, necrosis, and tumor grade. Experiments show that our method gains 15.29% from image evidence on the CleanSlide, compared with 2.81% for the best published model. On the external CPTAC and BCNB cohorts, our method achieves accuracies of 57.6% and 59.0%, outperforming all other evaluated models by 9.7% and 3.4%, respectively. We will release the benchmark and code.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) offer significant potential in computational pathology by enabling interpretable image analysis, automated reporting, and scalable decision support. However, their widespread clinical adoption remains limited due to the absence of reliable, automated evaluation metrics capable of identifying subtle failures such as hallucinations. To address this gap, we propose PathGLS, a novel reference-free evaluation framework that assesses pathology VLMs across three dimensions: Grounding (fine-grained visual-text alignment), Logic (entailment graph consistency using Natural Language Inference), and Stability (output variance under adversarial visual-semantic perturbations). PathGLS supports both patch-level and whole-slide image (WSI)-level analysis, yielding a comprehensive trust score. Experiments on Quilt-1M, TCGA, REG2025, PathMMU and TCGA-Sarcoma datasets demonstrate the superiority of PathGLS. Specifically, on the Quilt-1M dataset, PathGLS reveals a steep sensitivity drop of 40.2% for hallucinated reports compared to only 2.1% for BERTScore. Moreover, validation against expert-defined clinical error hierarchies reveals that PathGLS achieves a strong Spearman's rank correlation of $ρ=0.71$ ($p < 0.0001$), significantly outperforming Large Language Model (LLM)-based approaches (Gemini 3.0 Pro: $ρ=0.39$, $p < 0.0001$). These results establish PathGLS as a robust reference-free metric. By directly quantifying hallucination rates and domain shift robustness, it serves as a reliable criterion for benchmarking VLMs on private clinical datasets and informing safe deployment. Code can be found at: https://github.com/My13ad/PathGLS